Why don't you play variable 1NT openings?

[hanp]

While I agree with the case Adam was making, I didn't agree with his use of "very clear".

[Cascade]

While I agree with the case Adam was making, I didn't agree with his use of "very clear".

I can't find his use of "very clear"

[NickRW]

While I agree with the case Adam was making, I didn't agree with his use of "very clear".

I can't find his use of "very clear"

He didn't. But to be fair, it seems as though he meant it.

[ninja89]

I enjoy slam bidding over 1NT openings, and it's quite a bit rarer to have a slam try opposite +11-14 1NTs than over strong notrumps. Plus, I'm emotionally biased towards the strong notrump.

[Cascade]

Plus, I'm emotionally biased towards the strong notrump.

You won't fit in here.

 

That comment exposes your predujices too honestly ;)

[hanp]

He edited his post and changed it to "obvious". Either that or it was "obvious" all the time. ;)

[helene_t]

I enjoy slam bidding over 1NT openings, and it's quite a bit rarer to have a slam try opposite +11-14 1NTs than over strong notrumps. Plus, I'm emotionally biased towards the strong notrump.

Hi Ninja89, welcome to the forum, I am sure you will fit in well despite Cascade's funny comment :)

 

Btw I think there should be a mandatory field in the user profiles for "emotional biases", would make the discussions much easier to follow!

[rhm]

1m------(2H)------???

1m------(3H)------???

Okay, let's take an example. Say the auction goes:

 

1♣ - (3♥) to me. I hold:

 

♠xxx

♥Kxx

♦AQxxx

♣xx

 

What do I do? In a strong notrump system, I have an easy pass. Partner will almost always have a weak notrump, or a roughly equivalent hand with long clubs. We have no particular need to compete opposite that. In a weak notrump system, if partner has a strong notrump we are almost sure to have game. If partner has a 4(31)5 12-count we are probably going for a number if I do anything but pass. What's my call?

 

The point is that in a strong notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range than I have a game force opposite anything partner might have. If I have less than this, I am quite safe to pass because partner is in the 11-14 range with super high frequency. In a weak notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range then we might be in huge trouble if/when partner has an unbalanced minimum. So do I bid or pass? Keep in mind that I can't rely on partner to always balance on a flat 15-17.

 

1♣ - (3♥)

 

♠KQTxx

♥xx

♦Axx

♣xxx

 

If partner had opened a strong notrump, it would be obvious to bid 3♠ here. If partner had opened a weak notrump, it would be obvious to pass. What if partner opens 1♣? In a strong notrump system, it's obvious to pass. In a weak notrump system I guess I'm supposed to bid (in case partner has a strong notrump), but what if opener holds: ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx AQxxx? Guess I go for 500 opposite air?

 

Even if you think there are comparable problems for a strong notrump system on different hands (I disagree) the original post was about variable notrump. The fact that the problem hands are different and that you need to take different actions on the same auction with these hands implies that there's more to playing different ranges based on seat/vulnerability than appears at first glance.

It is a fair point you are making against a weak notrump and the same Fred made in a previous thread.

Nevertheless even though I tend to play strong notrump myself I am not sure it prooves much.

It is well known that weak notrump has advantages and disadvantages.

This particular problem is of quite low frequency at least if you compare it to the problems a weak notrumper passes to opponents regularly.

Your partner must open with a minor next opponent must have the right hand to come in with a preempt, always much more dangerous when one opponent has already bid, and you must sit there with a borderline hand to come in, with no clear bid.

Your first hand qualifies but your second one does not

 

After

 

1♣ - (3♥)

 

♠KQTxx

♥xx

♦Axx

♣xxx

 

I would always double and expect early Christmas opposite ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx AQxxx and it is not so clear whether a negative double or 3♠ is the superior bid opposite a strong notrump.

Which only proves your example hands have to be constructed carefully and are rare in practice.

Where I agree completely is that you have to play different systems if you vary your notrump.

In the short term this may be a disadvantage, memory burden and all that. In the long term it may give you many advantages having experienced all the different aspects of the game.

Players, who have played different systems are usually more competent like people who have lived in different cultures.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

Any discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the weak notrump would take far more space than any one post or, indeed, any one thread. It is a complex topic that is made all the more complex by the reality that no single 'convention' or 'bid' can or should be analyzed in isolation from the rest of the methods in play.

 

While Adam makes some valid points, he addresses only a small part of the range of issues that arise. Moreover, I do not think that the debate can ever be resolved with any degree of mathematical precision.

 

For example: what range of weak notrump are we considering? 10-12 is fundamentally different from 12-14. 11-14 carries with it issues that do not apply, at least with equal force, to 12-14. And so on.

 

Do we allow 5 card majors within any of our 1N ranges? If so, do we have criteria for when we do and when we don't?

 

Do we play negative doubles after our 1N, and, if so, at what levels?

 

How effective are our rescue/competitive measures after a double or other interference over our weak notrumps?

 

Do we play that double, by responder, of a 1♥ overcall denies spades? This is relevant because in std, absent this treatment, we are going to have a problem hand with, say, 3=2=5=3 9 counts after 1♣ (1♥) ? How much of a problem and how to deal with it will vary according to our 1N range.

 

How important is winning the race to 1N, when the hcp are shared roughly equally between the 2 sides? In mps, very much... in imps, not as much. Weak Notrumps are good for this, compared to strong.

 

How important is preemption? Weak notrumps preempt 2nd seat well, but 4th seat poorly (when opener has a strong notrump and opens a minor, allowing 4th seat to get in at the one-level on some hands).

 

This is not intended to set out the issues to be addressed: this is merely to suggest some of the complexity involved.

 

But, as some have pointed out, the original post was not about relative effectiveness but about variability. Surely no serious bridge player is really worried about the 'memory strain' of playing different ranges? Do we all play the same methods with all of our partners, for example? And nobody plays the same major suit opening structure over a 3rd seat 1major as they do over a 1st seat opener, do they?

 

My subjective impression is that, within a 2/1 framework, 10-12 is ineffective against good opps, but great against the mass of players, while 11-14 is too wide a range. 12-14 is very effective in 1st and 2nd, but slightly less so at mps where we lose a lot of 4=4 fits, especially in the major.... a factor partially offset by the difficulty most defenders have defending 1N well. 15-17 is safe and reliable, but is non-threatening to the opps... 12-14 increases their risk, since they may be missing game (or a good partscore) if they are conservative, while that is a relatively rare occurrence over the strong Notrump...

[ninja89]

Thanks for the welcome, helene_t. Interesting that you should bring up the profile - I was thinking that it would be better to have "Conventions I swear by" and possibly "Conventions I despise" in the profile rather than "Preferred Conventions/System Notes," to allow for more... direct exposure of prejudices.

[benlessard]

As a simple guideline your 1Nt range is better played as different to your minimum opening hand in playable strenght.

 

So that

 

1m-----1M

2M

 

show similar value playing hands. (balanced 15-17 & unbalanced 12-14) or balanced 12-14 and pretty weak unbalanced hands)

 

Also you want that

 

1m------(XYZ)---------???

 

here you want that opener worse hand wheiter balanced or unbalanced have the same playing strenght. So that the you have a uniform limit of partner lowest possible playing strenght.

 

If it goes

 

1C------(4M)----------???

 

Wheiter im thinking about X or 5C, 5C or 6C, pass or X. It better for me if partner minimum unbalanced and balanced hands look alike in term of playing strenght.